Hansard

All children and young people are entitled to the high-quality learning and teaching that enable them to achieve their full potential. In recent years, a number of local authorities have brought forward budget proposals to reduce the school week, but all were subsequently dropped in the face of significant parental opposition. This year, however, we have seen renewed proposals from Highland to reduce the primary school week by two and a half hours in 2016-17. I do not believe that it is right that parents should have to fight for their children’s education in that way. No matter where in Scotland a child lives, he or she should be entitled to receive a consistent education offer. Education cannot be sacrificed in the name of savings, and we must all recognise the short-sightedness of such an approach. In lodging amendment 164, I wanted to respond to some of the comments that have been made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others. Let me be clear: this is a considered response to a real issue. Teachers and parents have been asking us to make this change for many months now, and COSLA knew that it was under consideration. The amendment is not based on anecdote or hearsay. As I have already said, councils have already made a number of proposals to reduce school hours—and, of course, those are just the proposals that we know about. In response to the concerns of parents and teachers across the country and in order to introduce effective protection of our school hours, amendment 164 seeks to place a duty on education authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools to make available to pupils a minimum number of learning hours annually. Amendment 173 amends the long title of the bill to reflect the provisions that I am proposing on the delivery of a minimum number of hours of school education. I agree with the national parent forum of Scotland that any national entitlement should be secured only after full consultation, and I am conscious that this complex matter cannot be adequately addressed by establishing a blunt and inflexible duty on the face of the bill. What primary school children require in terms of teacher contact is unlikely to mirror the needs of secondary school pupils, and although, as we know, recent cost-saving proposals have focused on primary education, that does not mean that our secondary school pupils are not equally entitled to a guarantee in relation to their learning. As I have said, such complex issues are worthy of debate, but that debate cannot be about savings. Education is simply too important for that. As a result, amendment 164 provides an enabling power for Scottish ministers to prescribe the minimum number of learning hours and the type of school education that constitutes learning hours. Our starting point is that primary school pupils’ current education provision must not be diminished. That provision, which is currently on a non-statutory basis, equates to 950 hours of teacher contact time over the course of a school year, which reflects the level of contact time that was envisaged when curriculum for excellence was being developed. Prescribing learning hours in regulations, however, enables us to carry out a full and formal consultation with stakeholders in advance of exercising the enabling power. We have also recognised the need to accommodate situations that depart from the norm. For example, there are children whose medical conditions restrict the amount of time that they can reasonably spend in school. Moreover, there are children who live far from their school and whose travel time lengthens their day to the extent that, particularly in the younger stages, it is inappropriate for them to spend as long at school as others. Amendment 164 provides flexibility by enabling education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to make exceptions where they are satisfied that it would not be in the individual pupil’s interests to undertake the prescribed number of learning hours in a year. Education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools will also retain the power to determine their school day and school week within the overall requirement to provide the prescribed number of learning hours. I point out that there is no intention to prescribe the way in which learning hours should be divided over the school year, and amendment 164 will not interfere with authorities’ right to continue to operate an asymmetric week, if they so wish. 13:00 In contrast, amendment 165, which was lodged by Mr Griffin, affords no such flexibility. By prescribing the number of hours to be provided each week, the amendment would strip education authorities of their power to set the school day or vary weeks across the term. By placing the details of the duty on the face of the bill, amendment 165 precludes any opportunity for consultation, and I have been clear that I want to protect current local authority provision of 25 hours of teacher contact time with a registered teacher. By prescribing the minimum number of hours and the nature of those hours in regulations, amendment 164 affords us the opportunity to consult stakeholders to ensure that we have recognised and adequately addressed all the potential complexities of the issue. Unlike amendment 165, our provisions will reflect the fact that, in the post-curriculum for excellence world, teaching and learning will not always take place in classes. I have touched already on the need for any minimum hours duty to recognise the different needs of particular groups of children, such as those for whom travel creates a lengthy day. Any school hours legislation needs to be able to accommodate different arrangements and circumstances, and my amendment provides that flexibility; I am afraid that amendment 165 does not. I recognise the challenges and constraints that national and local government face as a result of the current financial situation. I accept that tough decisions have to be made, but surely such decisions should not be made at the expense of the education of our children and young people. We are not talking about placing new and unreasonable burdens on local authorities. It is about protecting primary school pupils from reductions to their school week that have been proposed purely on the ground of budget saving without regard to our commitment to raising attainment for all and reducing inequalities of outcome. No one can argue that less teaching time is the route to improving attainment, and I for one am not prepared to stand by and watch as education authorities make savings and then find out that that was to the detriment of their pupils. I recognise that Labour seeks similar aims through amendment 165 and I welcome its support for our policy position. However, I believe that amendment 164, in my name, will better achieve the aims that we seek and I ask the committee to support it while asking Mr Griffin not to move his amendment. I move amendment 164.